Claims About Sufism and the Sufi Orders
The claim that he is "against the Sufi orders"
Partly true
Claim
Fact
A Sufi order is not a wrong path — this is Kuytul's first sentence on the subject. A Sufi order is one school within Sufism, just like the Hanafi and Shafi'i schools within fiqh. Naqshbandi, Qadiri, Mevlevi and Shadhili are such schools, and in his own words "there is no harm in this".
What he says is this: what today calls for is not a Sufi order but a religious community. His reason is a historical one — the Sufi orders were born in a period when the civilisation, the state, the madrasas and the scholars of Islam were already standing. Because the rest of the structure was in place, some scholars were able to devote themselves to the disciplining of the self. Today that framework does not exist; and so he argues that the framework has to be built first.
In his own comparison: "A religious community is like a university and a Sufi order like a department. What we need is a university."
Sufism itself he does not give up. The remembrance of Allah, supererogatory fasts, the Qur'an, the tahajjud and duha prayers — he wants all of these to be in the community's programme. His objection is not to these, but to a Sufi order affiliation being counted as a requirement for them.
Why this label, "Partly true"?
Because the person voicing the claim is not entirely mistaken: Kuytul really does not recommend entering the path of a Sufi order today. Rather than deny this, we write it openly.
But this is not a fault, nor something to be hidden. There is no view being concealed here; there is a choice of priority that has been defended openly, together with its reason, for years. A scholar saying "this matter is today's priority" does not mean that they bear enmity towards the thing they are said to reject.
This is exactly where the claim goes wrong: it relays a choice as if it were an enmity.
Let us set out the distinction first: Sufism is one thing, a Sufi order another
These two claims are often confused with each other, yet their answers are different. The claim of enmity towards Sufism is entirely unfounded: in Kuytul's view Sufism is a branch of knowledge that is necessary today as well, and the record of thirty hours of lessons is there to be seen.
A Sufi order, on the other hand, is a school within Sufism. The discussion here is not about the necessity of Sufism but about where the structure of the Sufi order stands today.
What does "this is the time of the community" mean?
The Sufi orders appeared in a period when the civilisation of Islam was standing: there was a state, there were armies, there were madrasas and scholars. Kuytul's finding is this: today that structure does not exist, and therefore priority should be given to building it.
"Let us first build the Islamic Civilisation; the Sufi orders will be inside it in any case."
The second half of the sentence matters: he is not saying that the Sufi orders will disappear but that they will have their place within the structure that is to be built.
The capacity argument
His second reason is a practical one. A large-scale structure reaching from secondary school pupils to university students, from its women to its men, and containing madrasa work, educational activity, publishing and conferences, is not carried by the Sufi order model:
"In a Sufi order there is a single sheikh, everyone goes and kisses his hand, and that is all. A community, on the other hand, raises thousands of intellectuals and teachers with the qualities of a scholar. The nation needs this."
The measure is not the question "which is holier" but the question "which meets today's need".
Is Sufism being given up?
No — and this is the point the claim most often skips. The community Kuytul describes should hold within it everything that is good in a Sufi order, and should even add many things that are not in a Sufi order:
- remembering Allah abundantly,
- supererogatory fasts,
- reading the Qur'an,
- the tahajjud and duha prayers,
- taqwa, knowledge of Allah and love of Allah.
That is, the content of Sufism is preserved; what is under discussion is only the structure within which it is to be kept alive.
Why do we not call this claim "unfounded"?
We could have. The sentence "he is not against the Sufi orders" can be formed and could technically be defended too — because the legitimacy of the Sufi order is accepted.
But that would be to hide something from the reader. Kuytul does not recommend entering the path of a Sufi order today; anyone who listens to the recording hears this. To say "entirely unfounded" in such a place would make everything else the site says doubtful as well.
This is why the label is "Partly true". The part that is true is this: there is a choice of priority and it is defended openly. The part that is wrong is this: this choice is relayed as opposition and belittlement. The difference between defending a view openly and being an enemy of it is the subject of this whole page.